Regan vs The Board of Pokémon
by Smartfood
Summary: In this dialogue, Thomas Regan discusses animal ethics with, none other than, the famous Ash Ketchum.


**Disclaimer: **I do not own the Pokémon characters used in this dialogue, nor do I own Professor Regan.

So, basically, this something that I wrote for a class assignment and decided to post here because I feel bad only having one other story. So say thank you to my guilt and feelings of inadequacy for the posting of this story.

* * *

**Ash:** Pikachu! I choose you!

**Regan:** Stop you filthy speciest! This animal has his own value and you have no right to use him for your own reasons!

**Pikachu:** Pika?

**Regan:** He is more than just a piece of matter! He is something more, something different from a mere receptacle.

**Ash **_(sweat drop_)**:** But I have taken good care of him and we're all happy.

**Regan:** You can't only consider people's pleasure to decide what is right and wrong! This principle allows for all kinds of immoral acts to happen. I mean what if you found out that by killing another Pokémon trainer, you could save thousands of other people from being murdered by team rocket? According to you causing Pikachu pain (i.e. fainting) would create the most overall happiness for everyone, but how can such an evil deed like killing one of your friends or companions be justified! This action would make you a murderer.

**Ash **_(aside)**:**_ Is this guy for real?

**Pikachu **_(aside)_**: **Pika...

**Regan:** ... Your ideas also suggest that Pikachu has no individual value. Your actions may make you and your fellow pokétrainers happy, but what about you pokémon? I believe that they have an inherent value just because they are living beings just like you or me.

**Ash: **He's still going... And I thought Professor Oak was bad...

**Regan: **...As they are living beings you should not have any right to treat them in whatever way you see fit. It is also not right for you to sacrifice their individual value and freedom for the sake of overall pleasure or for your sick and twisted end.

**Ash:** But I gotta catch 'em all!

**Pikachu:** Pika Pika!

**Regan:** Oh but that is not all! You also limit their freedom and impede upon their rights as living creatures by kidnapping them from their open grassy homes and placing them into small, cramped pokéballs for your own enjoyment!

**Ash:** I really don't believe that Pikachu and I are the same. We may both have some value, but I'd like to think that I have a little more.

**Pikachu: **Pika??

**Regan:** Why is that? Sure you can ride a bike and may be able to read books and yes I can admit that animals are unable to do such actions, but many humans are also unable to do so. These humans may lack this ability, yet we don't say that they, therefore, have fewer rights.

**Pikachu: **Pika! Pika!

**Ash:** But all humans have at least had the potential, at some point in time, to be able to ride a bike or read or just think rationally. Animals never gain this potential.

**Pikachu: **Pika?!

**Regan:** Rather than focusing on the differences between us, we should be focusing on our similarities. I experience life and so do you. That experience is a major component of what makes us similar. Pikachu is alive and he experiences life, so how is he any different from us? We allow ourselves rights as we are all fundamentally the same, as Pikachu shares this similarity, he and all other animals should also be considered when we think of those that receive rights.

**Ash:** Well even if we are somewhat similar, animals, like Pikachu, do not have souls. More importantly, they do not have immortal souls. God has given us the gift of immortal life after death, while soulless animals receive no part of this gift.

**Pikachu **_(with an "Oh no you didn't" attitude)_**:** Pikachu!

**Regan:** You cannot possibly defend this argument. One cannot provide proof of the existence of a human soul or the  
inexistence of an animal one. To believe so is flat out speciesism. Besides even if they did not receive eternal life after death, wouldn't it be best if we were to make their short lives, that they only receive once, more enjoyable? In that case we would still be obliged to give these animals rights and respect their individual value. I believe that all animal testing, eating, and overall general mistreatment of animals needs to be stopped. They should receive rights and be protected from molestation by the speciests and should not be held against their will.

**Ash:** But if we release them into the wild won't there be a sudden over abundance of animals that will throw of the ecosystem? I mean say we released an entire herd of tauros, wouldn't they go out and completely ravish the land?

**Regan:** The only reason for this incredibly high number of animals in captivity is that they are being bred in insanely high numbers by humans to meet people's demand for meat. But if we all were to follow my philosophy there would be no need for this breeding. All humans would be vegetarians and the mass production of meat and cattle would come to an abrupt halt. When the demand drops, the financial reasoning for slaughtering animals will evaporate, and the idea of thousands of slaughter house animals destroying the land, disappears.

**Ash:** I suppose that would be true, if everyone suddenly agreed with your ideas. I see another problem with this though. How far on the evolutionary chain do you need to be to be considered an animal that my receive rights? What about worms and ants and slugs? Do they have inherent value and have the right to rights?

**Regan:** This question is a hard one. There is an obvious need for a line to be drawn… well… I don't have a real answer… No matter where you draw the line mammals and birds and reptiles are on one side and worms are on the other.

**Ash:** Well that seems a little vague, but I suppose that I now agree with you! Be free Pikachu! To Bill's PC! Away!

**Pikachu:** Pika! Pik...

**Mack truck:** _road kill_

**Ash: **Why is this world so cruel! Oh snap it's a wild Tangela! Charmander I choose you!


End file.
